Mutt, it's JSA Classified # 22. It (along with # 21) crosses over with the two most recent issues of Hawkgirl. Incidentally, the current artist on that (Renato Arlem) is quite good. Chaykin is (thankfully) only doing the covers.

A more accurate analogy would be "did you have a good reason for this or were you just being a jerk?"

See in your interpetation it makes it look like it's a trick questiuon and either way it looks bad, but in the actual question the first option gives you the opportunity to explain how you were finding the fun in some dreary feminist moan.

But you've decided to attack the question rather than defend the article, which suggests that you have nothing to cite in your defence, and I have my answer.

I've been reading (and greatly enjoying) this blog since the early days and this is another example of why I think I'm going to stop.

In fact, it combines 2 examples: firstly, the post itself is another in a long series that neither informs nor entertains me (which is perfectly fine - it's not written for my personal entertainment) and secondly, and more importantly, Scipio's responses to negative comments are striking me as more and more dickish rather than wittily sarcastic (see his response to alice d.).

The Absorbascon used to be one of my favourite blogs. I'm sure it used to be a whole lot better than this (and hopefully it will be again one day).

"the opportunity to explain how you were finding the fun in some dreary feminist moan."

If you have to explain the joke, there's no point in explaining it.

Quite a few people got it, it seems.

P.S. Dan; exactly how would you have responded to someone who asked something the way Alice D. did, specifically calling you a misogynist because you dared thumb your nose at dreary 'feminist' moans, or to hecklers in general?

I'm with Dan. Your tone has increasingly become bitter and sarcastic. Its not entertaining to see you being nasty to other bloggers. You used to seem intelligent enough not to have to make yourself look smarter by bringing others down.

For what it's worth: your blog used to be my nr. 1. It dropped off my list of dayly reads after the recent unpleasantness with Dance of the Puppets. This post has dropped it down further.

But I don't consider comic book commentary taboo for satire any more than I do comics themselves, nor do I consider the shop-worn complaints of female readers any more sacrosanct than those of male readers. Fangirl entitlement is no less silly than fanboy entitlement.

As Strepsiades said, "I am from the country, and I call a spade a 'spade'," and I'm sure there are some people who appreciate such frankness. In this case, when advocates of any group or minority appear to have taken the position that no representation of their group will ever be satisfactory to them, their complaints tend to lose credence and become fair game for ridicule. I have never been inclined toward "polite" silence in such matters, and have lived and worked in Washington for 20 years, where squeamishness about criticizing the politics of other is simply not the norm, particularly when those politics are espoused loudly and in high dudgeon, so as to cow any opposition.

My original (and on-going) purpose in creating the Absorbascon was to talk about things I wanted to talk about and to read things here that I wasn't reading elsewhere, whether they be funny, thought-provoking, or neither.

Feminism as championed by the ladies of So So Silver Age seems to have left the building and been replaced by one of a more reactionary stripe, much like one of the Big Three being replaced by Bad-Assed versions of themselves during the Superman's Dead Era.

Personal conversations with others have suggested to me that I am not alone in this perception, though I have seen little public on-line discussion of the fact. So, to me, it's only consistent with the mission of this blog to mention it, and heckling such as this post is receiving suggests that in doing so some nerve is being struck. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

I'm sorry if some readers wish only light-hearted fangless humor or dry mytho-structural analysis from me. However, expecting me to censor myself from "comic book politics" in what is, in essence, my own digital space feels much like coming into my house and telling me what politics I may or may not espouse.

I do not recall giving into peer pressure toward politics correctness of any stripe 20 years ago in college, and I'm less inclined to do so now, in what is my own on-line living room.

I thought it was pretty funny--satire has to be vicious to be effective, for me, anyway. It was certainly an adequate bit of filler until some more dry mytho-structural analysis gets posted. You can't get that stuff anywhere else.

Scipio, there's no courage or "standing up to political correctness" in joking about Sue Dibny's rape, the decapitation of Pantha, and the like. DC's comics of the last several years have repeatedly use violence against female characters -- violence which is often explicitly (Sue Dibny) or metaphorically (Phantom Lady, the female Dr. Light) sexual in nature -- and have done so in a way that would never be directed at male characters. I'm unfamiliar with any strain of feminism that holds depictions of women in popular fiction is of no concern, and it's intellectually disingenuous (at best) and dishonest (at worst) when you pat yourself on the back for sticking it to the mean ol' faux feminists who criticize DC and its creators -- even the one you're pals with -- by making light of their cavalier use of violence against women.

The Rolling Head of Pantha (truly a disposable, forgotten character) IS funny and anyone who insists on seeing political subtext in it deserves to pull his (or her) head out of the comics (and wherever else it might be stuck)and pay attention to some real social and political problems.

I do believe that humour is an art and therefore is open to interpretation. If someone finds a joke to be inappropriate or unfunny, so be it. That's your opinion. Marvel lover that I am, I often disagree with scipio but it's his blog.

If I got the joke, it was a mild one. More like a pun, a literal example of a woman being "depowered" in contrast to feminists more symbolic use of the word.

Yeah, sometimes Scipio's a bit blunt. But clearly in this case the critic was disguising a direct accusation of misogyny. She gave only one choice: the post must be in direct response to a linkable article, or it must be misogynistic. As Scipio illustrated, it's a false choice.

Maybe I sympathize with Scipio here because I merely asked--on the DC boards--if DC's new emphasize on recreating old heroes as new ethnic ones was tantamount to tokenism...and got blasted by Gail Simone as an evil racist.

Surely, a person can make a comment about a subject without automatically representing its most extreme negative viewpoint?

A man who speaks eloquently of the strengths of Etta Candy (her independent nature and resourcefulness despite an absence of powers) is pretty obviously no misogynist or a fan of misogyny.

So, what do you think: when Denny O'Neill de-powered Wonder Woman back in the early 1970s, was he unwittingly trying to imbue Diana Prince with the traits that Etta Candy had from day one? The execution was seriously botched, but I think that's what O'Neill was shooting for: not intending to weaken the character (except in the most literal sense), but to improve her by allowing her to overcome and transcend mere mortality.

Personally I find the effectiveness of the joke as a work of satiric humour to be irrelevant. What I find offensive is the idea that if someone pokes fun at or even directly criticizes a particular strain of feminist dogma it must be taken as a clear sign that they hate women. The world is much too complicated for such simple-minded reactionism.

*Whew*

All those big serious words hurt my brain. I wish I could think of a good fart joke right now.

You completely "swiped" the Jordan's brother bit (while "whositz" was "homaging" your "clumsy Hal" bit) and instead of cowboying up and saying "Whoops! My bad!" or "Golly! Great minds think alike (chuckle)" or even "C'mon! It's a comics blog! Things are being ripped off right and left! You think I paid for these images?" you lose that renowned sense of humor and get all pissy about it.

Now, you're compounding it by making fun of the person you ripped? Accusing the accuser, are we?

Serious twisting going on in that supple mind.

Take a step back, pilgrim. Maybe you should count to a hundred before posting.

This "Hal's brother" post that is such damning evidence against Scipio's sense of fair play ... I have two questions:

1) Exactly how many jokes are possible when you see Jim Jordan put on a power ring and immediately bonk his head? You might phrase it as "it runs in the family" or "it's genetic" or "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree", but really, there's only one joke that can be made.

2) Exactly how memorable a joke is it? Of all the dozens of examples of Jordanbonk in the DC Universe, is there anything about this particular instance that would stick with a person forever? It's an obvious joke about a silly comic book panel, the sort of thing that doesn't exactly leave a lasting impression.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but those people who think the original Jim Jordan post was incomparably brilliant commentary that no two people could have come up with (even if one of them probably chuckled over the comment, completely forgot about it, then made the same obvious joke at a later date) ... good God, you're making the rest of us overly-earnest comic book scholars look bad.

Scipio, I still don't understand why the original joke is supposed to be funny. Seriously, I don't know the context, and I don't know what you're referring to. Clue me in.

Also, I am curious - since you find the "politically correct" to be odious, am I to assume that you are a political conservative? I am genuinely curious, because I had assumed that the opposite was the case.

"Feminism as championed by the ladies of So So Silver Age seems to have left the building and been replaced by one of a more reactionary stripe, much like one of the Big Three being replaced by Bad-Assed versions of themselves during the Superman's Dead Era."

So your argument against feminists is that they are like Azrael, or possibly Cyborg Superman?

And if someone chooses to fight inequality in the comics industry rather than campaign for world peace or whatever, why should you care? And what if they find the time in their lives to do both? What's it to you? And how can you in the same post be telling other people how to live their lives while defiantly proclaiming how you won't let anyone else tell you how to live yours?

Anonymous #7371 - I've read the thread before, and I just took another look at it. My take on it is that the Jim Jordan panel made no real impact on Scipio, so when he re-encountered it, he didn't recall having seen it. Once he saw it again, he made the obvious joke, the same one anyone would have made.

You know how many comedians have independently come up with the observation that any wall along the Mexican border would probably have to be built by illegal laborers? Probably hundreds -- there are some punchlines that simply write themselves. The comedian who happened to make that joke first has no business treating it like his own intellectual property.

Not only pointing out that the punchline is not fresh, but also demanding compensation for this slight upon her Internet honor. Because Marionette, or whowever, was demanding Scipio admit he stole her intellectual property.

Tell me, what is the Turabian citation format for a joke so obvious that pretty much any faithful reader of Absorbascon would have made exactly the same joke? I called Kate and she said that was the lamest claim to intellectual property she ever heard of.

"Personally I find the effectiveness of the joke as a work of satiric humour to be irrelevant. What I find offensive is the idea that if someone pokes fun at or even directly criticizes a particular strain of feminist dogma it must be taken as a clear sign that they hate women. The world is much too complicated for such simple-minded reactionism. "

Uhh...what? Anyone who makes fun of a particular strain of feminist dogma, or EVEN CRITICISES it...hates women? Are you an idiot?

So If someone criticizes the NAACP, they hate blacksIf they criticize the Israeli government, they hate jews

If they criticize the KKK, they hate whites

If they criticize pat robertson, they hate christians

Now I hope that you realize how freaking stupid that is.

Oh and for all the retarded attacks on this blog for being "misogynist" you forget that the character in quesion, Blackfire is...

A) LameB) A villianC) defeated by teamwork of both hawkman and hawkGIRLD) Very, very lame.

Aum...Necrovmx (if I may call you Necrovmx) you might want to reread what I wrote since it pretty much affirms rather than contradicts your position. Scipio was accused of possible misogeny for posting a joke aimed a particular dogmatic viewpoint and I found this accusation offensive rather than valid. Considering all of the other positions taken in this increasingly bizarre comment thread, I find it odd that you would take issue with one that actually supports your viewpoint.

But at least you thought enough of your opinion to assign a name to it. That puts you ahead of a majority of the previous commenters.

Scipio was not speciously attacked for misogyny. He was asked to explain a vague joke which appears to be misogynistic, and which in the absence of other explanation really only makes sense AS misogynistic. He ducked the question, rather than make his viewpoint clear.

The joke isn't misogynistic at all. He's making fun of people who would see misogyny in that scene, and, perhaps, specifically picking a fight with one or two of them. By calling the joke misogynistic (or that it "appears to be misogynistic," which is really splitting hairs), you're falling into his trap.

It's intentionally incendiary and possibly a bit mean-spirited, but it's not remotely misogyny.

Scipio's "joke", yeah, it was mean. But then, most satire usually is. It's the nature of the beast.

Scipio's reasons for the joke, yeah, they might be a bit jerkish, but no more so than the action of those he lampoons in the joke, not only on this thread, but in general all over the blogoverse.

As with so much else, it's all a game of moral superiority. It's not really so much about right and wrong, as it is about one-uppmanship (or one-uppWOMANship, since I don't want to belittle women here).

Scipio, in a somewhat dickish manner, has exposed the very fact that there are many in the movement he lampoons in this joke, who are so rigidly inflexable in thier belief, that even a mere joke (whether the joker of it be a jerk or not), is cause to drag out the "big guns".

The problem here is that, while there is truly a legitimate issue that the feminist movement has raised, many have allowed themselves to become so dogmatically serious, that they've lost joy in the very thing they supposedly care about: Comics.

The use of "Isms" as weapons, of even the most minor infraction against the popular political opinion of the day, and the inability to laugh at one's own self and viewpoint, has brought about a polorization within the comics community, the likes of which I haven't seen since the 2004 election. What color is your comic views, red or blue? And heaven help you if you choose the wrong color on the wrong blog.

I used to blog, but stopped some time ago. And it was due to my own eyes viewing the coming storm. The very attitude that Scipio takes aim at in this joke, was one I saw coming a lot sooner than this. So, I got out.

The saddest part about all of this, is how much a case this is of not seeing the forest for the trees. While feminists say they are trying to help comics be more inclusive towards women, some of the very words and actions they display online are having the opposite effect 9not just on women, but people in general). They are making it seems all the sterotypes about comic readers are true and making people want less or nothing to do with them. meanwhile, people like Scipio, who are trying to point this out with humor and satire, are just causing more to be generated and both are becoming something worse than what they are supposdely fighting against. The ultimate irony, if ever there was one.

I don't come here regularly. I do stop in from time to time, though, and will continue to do so. I admire Scipio for not walking away like I did from blogging, given what the state of comics blogging has become. But mean-spirited satrie isn't helping change that, anymore than using "Isms" as weapons is making people more receptive to what feminists want done within the comics.

And the funniest part about all of this (or saddest, depending on your POV), while "dances" like this continue to rage all over the blogoverse, the real issues are not addressed. Nothing ultimately changes and both sides have no one to blame but themselves. And THAT may just be the biggest joke of them all. Too bad the only ones laughing at that are the ones who think comics are for juvinile and immature minds. Now that is something to truly take offense at.

Thank you for your time. I now return you to your regularly scheduled pointless argument, already in progress.

Yeah, sorry an all, and im sure you're not bothered (why should you be?) but i'm chosing to stop reading too.I'm a girl, i'm a feminist too, i dont think that should make people feign discust as much as it seems to, but as a female comic book reader i do actually enjoy comics, i dont necessarily agree with all the feminist complaints against some comics... but when you responded as you did to some of ther comments up there you pretty much.. .well you came across as an ass, and about as unfunny as you can get.

I've enjoyed the blog, i've looked over the anti-marvel-ness (being a fan of many comics and characters from the big two) but unfortunatly i can't look over this.

If you read through the posts over the last six months or so there are little snide digs at feminists all over the place, not counting the personal attacks on individuals. Wouldn't it be more productive to come out and write a post that addresses the issues you have a problem with instead of making these sad little jokes that appear to be calculated to annoy the people with whose views you disagree?

For what it's worth, I loved this blog when I first encountered it. Scipio and I are almost the same age, gay, and lifelong DC fans with a taste for camp humor. I felt like I'd come home.

In the last 6 months, what had been a near-daily visit turned into a maybe-once-a-week one because of some of the things that clearly other readers have picked up on: a snideness and nastiness in Scipio's online persona that I hadn't detected before. It didn't make me angry, but it tended to turn me off.

Today, I stopped by for the first time in weeks and see this. Sorry, but I think I'm not coming back. Not for the post, which provoked nothing more than "Hunh?" but for Scipio's responses.

I'm not here to wag my finger or make you feel bad, but I thought you should know that apparently several readers have been noticing the same thing. It's entirely your prerogative to write what you want and act how you like, but in blogging, there is a price to be paid if your readers are being turned off and you're talented enough and your writing is charming enough that you deserve to know that.

When I first read this post, I had alice d's question: what's the target of the joke here? If (and we don't know, because Scipio hasn't said) the jokey defense of Blackfire is intended to correspond to some serious feminist defense of some specific lame character out there, then that's one thing, and perfectly fair. If it's just a cheap shot at the feminism-in-comics crowd in general, then that's another, and not.

Apparently this is what we get with the Absorbascon: some posts that are as funny as any you'll see in the comics blogohedron, and some that are as insightful as etc., and some posts with some political content where Scipio comes off like a jerk. (All the more frustrating because I'm not convinced that he actually is a jerk.) To me, it's still in the plus column.

Thank you, tern, for so perfectly proving my point that right and wrong are secondary to all involved, over playing the game of one-uppmanship.

I'm sure with folks like you and Scipio out there making the case, all the issues between the two sides of the situation will soon find common ground and a happy compromise that will bring everyone satisfaction.

That's a funny thing: no one seems to have asked themselves why Scipio chose Blackfire, of all characters, to make his point about one of the more dogmatic forms of feminism. So here are a few questions about the character.

1) Is Blackfire a good role model to women?

2) Is she an interesting character?

3) Is she a strong, noteworthy villainess?

4) Similarly, is she a prominent villainess? Is she widely known and respected in comic-book circles and considered to be a shining example of what a female villainess could and should be?

5) Are you very familiar with the character, if at all? If you're only slightly familiar with her, does she intrigue you?

6) Do you view Blackfire's loss of her powers as a major blow towards female characters? Is it as bad as say, Black Canary being tortured and losing her sonic cry? The rape of Sue Dibny? Repeatedly placing Wonder Woman in bondage scenarios to satisfy a sexual kink? Stuffing (but not cutting up, contrary to popular belief) Alex DeWitt in a fridge?

Now suppose you're a feminist, and your answer to all of these questions was "no." Do you

(a) Ignore it, since you never really cared for the character in the first place?Or

(b) Get mad anyway, because she's a woman, she's lost her powers, and comics don't have the best track record when it comes to handling women?

If your answer is (b), then I think Scipio's post was directed at you.

"But Gokitalo," you might say (try saying it out loud with a straight face, I dare ya ;)), "someone else could have easily said 'yes' to most (maybe even all) of these questions!" And that's true. But why speak for them?

Well, I think it's mudslinging to label Scipio as a misogynist based on this post, because he makes it pretty clear, in the comments as well, that he is not condemning feminism, or women, in general. Or else, why take his parody as a barbed one, if it isn't aimed at some more definite target than that?

So some might see this post as a mean-spirited attack on specific individuals, and maybe it is. But on the other hand, there's nothing illicit about finding "reactionary" feminism distasteful, either (or as Scipio has carefully put it, reactionary "feminism"), and it doesn't automatically add up to misogyny to hold that view. To insist that it does is a low tactic, even if you do think Scipio's a jerk.

I've got no opinion about anything else here that I care to share. I got the joke, and didn't think it needed a citation. I'll be back. But, I'll also be Anonymous, because all this vitriol makes me reluctant to use my real name.

Sometimes I stop reading some blog or other for some reason or other. Almost never do I announce this, because really, nobody but me gives a rip about it. Other readers and ex-readers may think it's a big deal when they stop reading, and that the rest of us need to know when this happens, but really, it ain't. And if "feminists," if that's who they are, are content to live down to their stereotype as humorless scolds, then they should continue to behave as some are behaving, on this thread.

Sometimes I don't stop writing, when I clearly should, but I just can't get past this:Anonymous, 67 words, 1 sentence:“I'm unfamiliar with any strain of feminism that holds depictions of women in popular fiction is of no concern, and it's intellectually disingenuous (at best) and dishonest (at worst) when you pat yourself on the back for sticking it to the mean ol' faux feminists who criticize DC and its creators -- even the one you're pals with -- by making light of their cavalier use of violence against women.”

Wait wait wait, WHOSE “cavalier use of violence” are you talking about? Parsing the above, it’s “DC and its creators” who do this “use of violence” thing. Because, apparently, publishing stories and using violence are kind of just about pretty nearly the same thing, right? Of course they are. So it’s “use of violence” even when you’re talking about publishers, critics, or critic-mockers. In your rhetoric, and maybe in your … logic, it’s as if the mocker OF the criticizer OF the publisher OF the story IS the user of the imaginary violence. After all, mocking a critique of a story is the same as condoning what happens in the story, right? So it’s wrong, morally wrong, to make distinctions between mockery and violence. It must be.Bah.

gokitalo - If Scipio feels strongly about Blackfire then I think it's only fare that loyal readers of the absorbocon should support him in this and not get boged down in side issues. If you don't liek her, fine. But that's no reason you should complain against Scopio for writing about her.

You misunderstand: I'm not complaining about him writing about Blackfire. I know next to nothing about her! What I meant to say was that perhaps Scipio chose Blackfire because there's a fairly good chance that most people don't know who she is nor consider her to be a strong female role model, a good villainess, etc., etc. YET there may still be a section of female feminists who complain anyway, despite neither knowing nor caring about the character.

Ah, forgot to mention this initially: what this post may also be pointing out is that there seems to be a section of female feminist fandom who seem to treat every bad thing that happens to a female comic book character as an act of shovenism.

Maybe this and maybe that. Why can't Scipoi just write about Blackfire if he wants to? Why do poeple always have to see some "deeper" meaning in a simple posting about a charicter he is sad to see gone away?

I never said he couldn't write about Blackfire. Let me make this very clear: I am [i]defending[/i] Scipio (not that he needs it, but still). As for your interpretation of his initial post... you may want to read that post again. Particularly the small font at the bottom. I'll repeat it here:

"Oh. Sorry.

Had a moment of what's passing itself off as 'feminism' nowadays..."

Also, if Scipio has no love for Marv Wolfman's DC work, including the Teen Titans and Starfire (something he's made blatantly clear in earlier posts), I kind of doubt he'd be sad about what happened to Blackfire, ya know?

Just so that you don't think all women are windup feminazis-- If I had Blackfire in the Absorbascon, I'd have thrown the damn switch too.

And because I can...To the guilty: People who share my gender are making me regret that second X by being stupid, if you're talking travesty of character-- there are other women (and men) that really have been wronged and could do with a good set of vocal champions (That might write actual paper letters to DC or Marvel. Wow! What a concept!). But where are you on this? Silent. And you know why? Because you don't know your collective butts from a hole in the ground. So instead of giving us all cheap thrills by pontificating from your mudhole, let's take a quick look at the picture here. What Blackfire is experiencing in those panels in no way impinges on who she is. She's just reaping the rewards of crossing the Hawkfolk. The end. It's not insulting. It's not even out of character.

No kidding. I read this page as "finally, Blackfire being punished for all the misery she's inflicted on ENTIRE PLANETS." Frankly I'll be unsurprised to see this reversed someday. Why? Because Blackfire is smart enough to find a new power source; even de-powered she still has the clever spite to manipulate entire nations if she chooses. Could make for an interesting story.

I do believe comics are getting better at treating female characters in terms of character, not gender.